CHICAGO | General Developments

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Long story short, UP closed this yard (Canal St Yard) as part of cost-cutting moves. Due to space limitations, it was not very efficient compared to the truly enormous yards out in the exurbs. However, with freight volumes straining the current yard infrastructure, it's possible UP will reactivate it, or at least retain ownership for the future.

IMO it may be needed in the future as a yard for passenger trains, as Amtrak service in the Midwest grows. It has a straight shot into Union Station, and while it may be tight for mile-long freight trains it's the perfect size for 800' passenger trains. Seems foolish to open it up to residential development and never get that land back.

Seems like too prime of a location to sit empty. I also hate what it does to the neighborhood, but I hope you're right and there is enough Amtrak service to require its future use!

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

Seems like too prime of a location to sit empty. I also hate what it does to the neighborhood, but I hope you're right and there is enough Amtrak service to require its future use!

Well, it could either be a yard expansion for Amtrak or a relocation of their existing yard that opens up that other site for development (large riverfront parcel, close to downtown, etc).

Putting my architect hat on - even if the Canal St yard were opened up to private development, the cost to remove the embankment and truck out all that soil would be astronomical. No developer would take that on, at least not to build mid-density "neighborhood" housing. It would probably just end up being housing on top of the embankment, with few connections to the street below. I live in a building like that and while it works fine for a one-off midrise, it's not great for a whole complex.

A better use for the Canal St yard might be an elevated park, but the "Chinese wall" effect would remain. I think we're pretty much stuck with that forever.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I’ve been in that boat a few times too and mostly don’t disagree, but $40 million fine (your words) is not even on the same planet of being reasonable. Even for a delinquent, douchy landlord. Hell, just use eminent domain and seize the property or force a demo.

Nope, eminent domain means they need to compensate the negligent owners. These fines and building court are an entirely separate governmental process that falls under police powers. They have the right to step in and demo, fine, or secure property that is not being cared for just as they would impound an abandoned vehicle or one used in a crime.

The giant fine allows the city to wrest control of the site from the owners. Ultimately the city gets a big fat lien on the property and forecloses it. Why would you use eminent domain and then have to get into a legal battle with the deadbeat about how much money you should reward their bad behavior with...

[the urban politician]

^ Yes, I realize that that’s what the city is trying to accomplish. We’ve gone full circle to the beginning. But my issue is….hell, some day I’ll have this discussion with you by phone. This forum is really not the best venue for this.

[Steely Dan]

renderings revealed for the Gordon Tech replacement development in Irving Park, courtesy of Chicago Yimby.

the proposed apartment building is kinda ugly, but at least it holds the corner, and with retail space.


source: https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/09/pla...ving-park.html




i'm less fond of the townhome village on the northern portion. i sorta understand the appeal on a certain level, but these kinds of townhouse enclaves oriented around "stralleys"* are just not my cup of tea.

we looked at a townhouse in one of them when we were house-hunting several years ago, and i was just like "nope, can't do it. i need to live on a real street".



source: https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/09/pla...ving-park.html



(*) "stralley" being a vehicular thoroughfare that is like a bad combo of a both a street and an alley.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

renderings revealed for the Gordon Tech replacement development in Irving Park, courtesy of Chicago Yimby.

the proposed apartment building is kinda ugly, but at least it holds the corner.


i'm less fond of the townhome village on the northern portion. i understand the appeal on a certain level, but these kinds of townhouse enclaves oriented around "stralleys"* are just not my cup of tea.

we looked at a townhouse in one of them when we were house-hunting several years ago, and i was just like "nope, can't do it. i need to live on a real street".



source: https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/09/pla...ving-park.html



(*) "stralley" being a vehicular thoroughfare that is like a bad combo of a both a street and an alley.

same - these TH things always come out to be so car orientated

but is the waveland park down the middle going to be open to the public? if so that's pretty nice however these developments tend to be gated and/or the only access is by car

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

but is the waveland park down the middle going to be open to the public? if so that's pretty nice however these developments tend to be gated and/or the only access is by car

the rendering, of course, shows it being very open and public, but we'll see how it plays out in practice.

these kinds of townhouse developments are designed to encourage "compound mentality".


source: https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/09/pla...ving-park.html

[marothisu]

^ This thing has some fierce neighborhood opposition for whatever reason. So we'll see what happens.



By the way, the planned 5 class A story office building at Randolph and Carpenter in West Loop was issued a permit yesterday. It will have ground floor retail

Via https://l3capital.com/portfolio/1020-w-randolph-street/

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

same - these TH things always come out to be so car orientated

but is the waveland park down the middle going to be open to the public? if so that's pretty nice however these developments tend to be gated and/or the only access is by car

From the yimby article

The development’s placement along the river has made it so that is considered a planned development and thus will have to ensure public access, green spaces, and environmental care which will be met through the planned central parkway.

Not especially appealing. But if I am seeing correctly, it does appear some units open to California (i.e., not a walled fortress).

[the urban politician]

^ The units that face California are fine. Everything else is like a gated community. Chicago has been seeing project like this for years, I've never been a huge fan but they do tend to cram a decent amount of townhome density into rather tight spaces.

[ardecila]

I've never had a problem with townhouse developments especially on a site like this. Near downtown or near an L stop, it's a waste of scarce land but on a big redevelopment site far from the L it's great. They use land a lot more efficiently than traditional Chicago SFH development too, less space is wasted on backyards/sideyards and freestanding garages.

You can think about it another way, every new townhouse that gets built is a 2-flat that isn't deconverted. And providing options like this helps keep families in the city instead of fleeing to the burbs - which is a good thing so long as it doesn't lead to the displacement of smaller/less wealthy households!

[Steely Dan]

^ It's not the existence of townhouses that I take issue with, it's the way that many townhouse complexes are designed, with those weird "stralley" things, that turns me off.

If other people think they're a good option, more power to 'em, but as I said, definitely not my cup of tea.

[ardecila]

Most of that is due to the city's townhouse ordinance which is very specific. I agree the ordinance could use some updating.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Most of that is due to the city's townhouse ordinance which is very specific. I agree the ordinance could use some updating.

Yeah, Chicago has traditionally led the way in planning and building systems of public space. Everything from Burnham to the Jeffersonian grid to the conversion of that grid to not just organized blocks, but consistent systems of alleys to push building services off street.

To that point, even the lowly alley is still truly accessible to all for loading, a pedestrian shortcut, a place to BBQ and "King of the Hill", a way to escape that construction traffic...

But then you have this stuff, where there's a pseudo public realm instead. Accessible to all the residents, but locked away from the general public. A gated community, really no better than the ironically named "Albany Park Townhomes" that face the SW side of Douglass Park. It's totally contrary to the egalitarianism inherent in the beaucratic consistency of the grid. Any variation from the grid that isn't totally necessary should be illegal. Maybe a development like this gets special consideration being adjacent to the river, but that should only make public access to the area that much more of a priority.

[Steely Dan]

we looked at a townhouse in the complex below when we were house shopping several years ago. it's up at irving and the river, very close to the old gordon tech site.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9536...7i16384!8i8192

when we drove in there with our realtor i was just like "WTF is this? is it a street? is it an alley?" it's kinda both, while not succeeding at being either. textbook "stralley".

needless to say, as nice and big as the townhouse we looked at was, the weird compound it was within was a total deal-killer for us.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

we looked at a townhouse in the complex below when we were house shopping several years ago. it's up at irving and the river, very close to the old gordon tech site.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9536...7i16384!8i8192

when we drove in there with our realtor i was just like "WTF is this? is it a street? is it an alley?" it's kinda both, while not succeeding at being either. textbook "stralley".

needless to say, as nice and big as the townhouse we looked at was, the weird compound it was within was a total deal-killer for us.

uber pickups would def. be a challenge there

[west-town-brad]

is it an alley or is it a street?

YES:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8939...7i16384!8i8192

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

we looked at a townhouse in the complex below when we were house shopping several years ago. it's up at irving and the river, very close to the old gordon tech site.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9536...7i16384!8i8192

when we drove in there with our realtor i was just like "WTF is this? is it a street? is it an alley?" it's kinda both, while not succeeding at being either. textbook "stralley".

needless to say, as nice and big as the townhouse we looked at was, the weird compound it was within was a total deal-killer for us.

^ The problem with this particular development (and I suspect these are illegal now) is that even the street-facing townhomes have their main entrance facing the rear alley.

Most townhome developments built for the past several years have their street-fronting homes with main entrances facing the public sidewalk (as they should!). That's what matters most to me and the public realm.

If there are townhomes behind that with entrances facing private motor courts, I don't really care too much. But the street should always be faced with active uses.

[ardecila]

There are better and worse examples. I like Hartland Park, much clearer hierarchy of "streets" and "alleys" - although some of the streets are private so they can be narrower and use better materials like brick pavers. If you build a public street CDOT will enforce their one-size-fits-all template which is overly wide, basic AF and also very expensive to build.

Hartland Park:
https://goo.gl/maps/aLNGMB5NPkUL9EUr6

There's also a nice diversity of building types in that little area, from attached townhomes to condo buildings and some mansion-style SFH.

Kinzie Park also has a nice hierarchy of streets and alleys, although it is literally a gated community. Also the river-facing townhomes put their garage on a "street" so their front door can be on the river. But overall better than most.
https://goo.gl/maps/dnadd4X7cQTRdnNM7

Pappageorge Haymes' Willow Court also excellent. It doesn't have the same clear hierarchy but the "alley" is treated with high-quality materials and feels more like a Dutch woonerf than a typical ugly-assphalt service drive:
https://goo.gl/maps/cPoyjAHs3LqUgdu9A

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

There are better and worse examples. I like Hartland Park, much clearer hierarchy of "streets" and "alleys" - although some of the streets are private so they can be narrower and use better materials like brick pavers. If you build a public street CDOT will enforce their one-size-fits-all template which is overly wide, basic AF and also very expensive to build.

Hartland Park:
https://goo.gl/maps/aLNGMB5NPkUL9EUr6

There's also a nice diversity of building types in that little area, from attached townhomes to condo buildings and some mansion-style SFH.

Kinzie Park also has a nice hierarchy of streets and alleys, although it is literally a gated community. Also the river-facing townhomes put their garage on a "street" so their front door can be on the river. But overall better than most.
https://goo.gl/maps/dnadd4X7cQTRdnNM7

Pappageorge Haymes' Willow Court also excellent. It doesn't have the same clear hierarchy but the "alley" is treated with high-quality materials and feels more like a Dutch woonerf than a typical ugly-assphalt service drive:
https://goo.gl/maps/cPoyjAHs3LqUgdu9A

yeah, i apprecaite that there's a broad spectrum of the quality of these kinds of townhouse complexes, but i guess at a fundamental level i'm just not a "complex" guy, cuz i wouldn't really want to live in any of them.

i want to live on an actual street that's fully 100% public in every possible way. these complexes (even the better ones) always feel to inward-focused to me (that's probably by design).

different strokes for different folks.